Paddy Jackson apology

Started by yellowcard, April 06, 2018, 02:32:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

DuffleKing

#390
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:23:16 AM
As has already been mentioned he wasn't charged with rape. He didn't leave a girl bleeding and distressed. And I believe he has been sanctioned in some way, just not sacked.

I shouldn't have said saddos - I apologise.

These men have been presumed innocent of accusations of sexual assault and rape from the moment they were made and unanimously found not guilty by a jury of their peers of the same charges. They are and cannot be disciplined for any of those charges legally. If you don't understand that you disqualify yourself from being take seriously in these debates.

These two men have been sacked because their employers have an ethical issue with how they conduct their private lives - pure and simple. That is a very dangerous precedent as they now have to follow it up. It's a very good job that the IRFU don't apply these standards retrospectively or, for example, one of the world's best half backs would be out on his ear also.

Where else is this moral code to be applied? How about employees who take performance enhancing drugs? What about players who take recreational drugs or use legal narcotics in doses that induce well being effects? What about Ulster players who are members of the Orange Order? Drink driving offences? Slapping their children?

Pandora's box is opened and you can be sure that every personal indiscretion of IRFU employees going forward will be thrown on the altar for moral judgement.

magpie seanie

Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:35:55 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:23:16 AM
As has already been mentioned he wasn't charged with rape. He didn't leave a girl bleeding and distressed. And I believe he has been sanctioned in some way, just not sacked.

I shouldn't have said saddos - I apologise.

These men have been presumed innocent of accusations of sexual assault and rape from the moment and unanimously found not guilty by a jury of their peers of the same charges. They are and cannot be disciplined for any of those charges legally. If you don't understand that you disqualify yourself from being take seriously in these debates.

These two men have been sacked because their employers have an ethical issue with how they conduct their private lives - pure and simple. That is a very dangerous precedent as they now have to follow it up. It's a very good job that the IRFU don't apply these standards retrospectively or, for example, one of the world's best half backs would be out on his ear also.

Where else is this moral code to be applied? How about employees who take performance enhancing drugs? What about players who take recreational drugs or use legal narcotics in doses that induce well being effects? What about Ulster players who are members of the Orange Order? Drink driving offences? Slapping their children?

Pandora's box is opened and you can be sure that every personal indiscretion of IRFU employees going forward will be throw on the altar for moral judgement.

You do understand there's a difference between when someone maintains they gave consent and another person maintains they did not give consent - do you?

As we're aware of, the bar for a criminal conviction is very high as it should be. Not being convicted doesn't mean their behaviour was fine. They knew this girl was upset at the very least. They brought this on themselves with their actions. Any sympathy for them is grossly misplaced.

seafoid

Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:35:55 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:23:16 AM
As has already been mentioned he wasn't charged with rape. He didn't leave a girl bleeding and distressed. And I believe he has been sanctioned in some way, just not sacked.

I shouldn't have said saddos - I apologise.

These men have been presumed innocent of accusations of sexual assault and rape from the moment they were made and unanimously found not guilty by a jury of their peers of the same charges. They are and cannot be disciplined for any of those charges legally. If you don't understand that you disqualify yourself from being take seriously in these debates.

These two men have been sacked because their employers have an ethical issue with how they conduct their private lives - pure and simple. That is a very dangerous precedent as they now have to follow it up. It's a very good job that the IRFU don't apply these standards retrospectively or, for example, one of the world's best half backs would be out on his ear also.

Where else is this moral code to be applied? How about employees who take performance enhancing drugs? What about players who take recreational drugs or use legal narcotics in doses that induce well being effects? What about Ulster players who are members of the Orange Order? Drink driving offences? Slapping their children?

Pandora's box is opened and you can be sure that every personal indiscretion of IRFU employees going forward will be throw on the altar for moral judgement.
They got the boot because of reputational damage that was being done to ULster rugby and the IRFU by association with their social media messaging, which was revealed as part of the court case.
Most civilians will not have their Snapchats dissected in the Belfast Telegraph so it is wrong to compare an average punter with these legends. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWmkuH1k7uA 
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

DuffleKing

Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:43:02 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:35:55 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:23:16 AM
As has already been mentioned he wasn't charged with rape. He didn't leave a girl bleeding and distressed. And I believe he has been sanctioned in some way, just not sacked.

I shouldn't have said saddos - I apologise.

These men have been presumed innocent of accusations of sexual assault and rape from the moment and unanimously found not guilty by a jury of their peers of the same charges. They are and cannot be disciplined for any of those charges legally. If you don't understand that you disqualify yourself from being take seriously in these debates.

These two men have been sacked because their employers have an ethical issue with how they conduct their private lives - pure and simple. That is a very dangerous precedent as they now have to follow it up. It's a very good job that the IRFU don't apply these standards retrospectively or, for example, one of the world's best half backs would be out on his ear also.

Where else is this moral code to be applied? How about employees who take performance enhancing drugs? What about players who take recreational drugs or use legal narcotics in doses that induce well being effects? What about Ulster players who are members of the Orange Order? Drink driving offences? Slapping their children?

Pandora's box is opened and you can be sure that every personal indiscretion of IRFU employees going forward will be throw on the altar for moral judgement.

You do understand there's a difference between when someone maintains they gave consent and another person maintains they did not give consent - do you?

As we're aware of, the bar for a criminal conviction is very high as it should be. Not being convicted doesn't mean their behaviour was fine. They knew this girl was upset at the very least. They brought this on themselves with their actions. Any sympathy for them is grossly misplaced.

Legally, charges that they have been found not guilty of cannot be used as part of their dismissal - surely you grasp that? The trial cannot be used as part of the IRFU's reasoning.

This is very clear - irrespective of how much smoke and dust that is kicked up around it - these two players have been sacked because of how they conduct themselves in their personal lives irrespective of those actions being perfectly legal.


HiMucker

Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:43:02 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:35:55 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:23:16 AM
As has already been mentioned he wasn't charged with rape. He didn't leave a girl bleeding and distressed. And I believe he has been sanctioned in some way, just not sacked.

I shouldn't have said saddos - I apologise.

These men have been presumed innocent of accusations of sexual assault and rape from the moment and unanimously found not guilty by a jury of their peers of the same charges. They are and cannot be disciplined for any of those charges legally. If you don't understand that you disqualify yourself from being take seriously in these debates.

These two men have been sacked because their employers have an ethical issue with how they conduct their private lives - pure and simple. That is a very dangerous precedent as they now have to follow it up. It's a very good job that the IRFU don't apply these standards retrospectively or, for example, one of the world's best half backs would be out on his ear also.

Where else is this moral code to be applied? How about employees who take performance enhancing drugs? What about players who take recreational drugs or use legal narcotics in doses that induce well being effects? What about Ulster players who are members of the Orange Order? Drink driving offences? Slapping their children?

Pandora's box is opened and you can be sure that every personal indiscretion of IRFU employees going forward will be throw on the altar for moral judgement.

You do understand there's a difference between when someone maintains they gave consent and another person maintains they did not give consent - do you?

As we're aware of, the bar for a criminal conviction is very high as it should be. Not being convicted doesn't mean their behaviour was fine. They knew this girl was upset at the very least. They brought this on themselves with their actions. Any sympathy for them is grossly misplaced.

Legally, charges that they have been found not guilty of cannot be used as part of their dismissal - surely you grasp that? The trial cannot be used as part of the IRFU's reasoning.

This is very clear - irrespective of how much smoke and dust that is kicked up around it - these two players have been sacked because of how they conduct themselves in their personal lives irrespective of those actions being perfectly legal.
That is simply not true.  I don't know why this line continues to be pedalled out. 

magpie seanie

Quote from: HiMucker on April 16, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:43:02 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:35:55 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:23:16 AM
As has already been mentioned he wasn't charged with rape. He didn't leave a girl bleeding and distressed. And I believe he has been sanctioned in some way, just not sacked.

I shouldn't have said saddos - I apologise.

These men have been presumed innocent of accusations of sexual assault and rape from the moment and unanimously found not guilty by a jury of their peers of the same charges. They are and cannot be disciplined for any of those charges legally. If you don't understand that you disqualify yourself from being take seriously in these debates.

These two men have been sacked because their employers have an ethical issue with how they conduct their private lives - pure and simple. That is a very dangerous precedent as they now have to follow it up. It's a very good job that the IRFU don't apply these standards retrospectively or, for example, one of the world's best half backs would be out on his ear also.

Where else is this moral code to be applied? How about employees who take performance enhancing drugs? What about players who take recreational drugs or use legal narcotics in doses that induce well being effects? What about Ulster players who are members of the Orange Order? Drink driving offences? Slapping their children?

Pandora's box is opened and you can be sure that every personal indiscretion of IRFU employees going forward will be throw on the altar for moral judgement.

You do understand there's a difference between when someone maintains they gave consent and another person maintains they did not give consent - do you?

As we're aware of, the bar for a criminal conviction is very high as it should be. Not being convicted doesn't mean their behaviour was fine. They knew this girl was upset at the very least. They brought this on themselves with their actions. Any sympathy for them is grossly misplaced.

Legally, charges that they have been found not guilty of cannot be used as part of their dismissal - surely you grasp that? The trial cannot be used as part of the IRFU's reasoning.

This is very clear - irrespective of how much smoke and dust that is kicked up around it - these two players have been sacked because of how they conduct themselves in their personal lives irrespective of those actions being perfectly legal.
That is simply not true.  I don't know why this line continues to be pedalled out.

Exactly. Completely untrue. I wouldn't mind but it's not even that far back on this thread where it has been stated that in other professions people are let go if they get arrested.

David McKeown

Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:59:34 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on April 16, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:43:02 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:35:55 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:23:16 AM
As has already been mentioned he wasn't charged with rape. He didn't leave a girl bleeding and distressed. And I believe he has been sanctioned in some way, just not sacked.

I shouldn't have said saddos - I apologise.

These men have been presumed innocent of accusations of sexual assault and rape from the moment and unanimously found not guilty by a jury of their peers of the same charges. They are and cannot be disciplined for any of those charges legally. If you don't understand that you disqualify yourself from being take seriously in these debates.

These two men have been sacked because their employers have an ethical issue with how they conduct their private lives - pure and simple. That is a very dangerous precedent as they now have to follow it up. It's a very good job that the IRFU don't apply these standards retrospectively or, for example, one of the world's best half backs would be out on his ear also.

Where else is this moral code to be applied? How about employees who take performance enhancing drugs? What about players who take recreational drugs or use legal narcotics in doses that induce well being effects? What about Ulster players who are members of the Orange Order? Drink driving offences? Slapping their children?

Pandora's box is opened and you can be sure that every personal indiscretion of IRFU employees going forward will be throw on the altar for moral judgement.

You do understand there's a difference between when someone maintains they gave consent and another person maintains they did not give consent - do you?

As we're aware of, the bar for a criminal conviction is very high as it should be. Not being convicted doesn't mean their behaviour was fine. They knew this girl was upset at the very least. They brought this on themselves with their actions. Any sympathy for them is grossly misplaced.

Legally, charges that they have been found not guilty of cannot be used as part of their dismissal - surely you grasp that? The trial cannot be used as part of the IRFU's reasoning.

This is very clear - irrespective of how much smoke and dust that is kicked up around it - these two players have been sacked because of how they conduct themselves in their personal lives irrespective of those actions being perfectly legal.
That is simply not true.  I don't know why this line continues to be pedalled out.

Exactly. Completely untrue. I wouldn't mind but it's not even that far back on this thread where it has been stated that in other professions people are let go if they get arrested.

Indeed it's entirely incorrect. There's nothing in law to prevent the IRFU doing their own investigation and reaching an entirely different conclusion. Any investigation should be fair and based on evidence and not simply what's been reported in the press. That said the admissions made by the two players when taken with their apologises is probably enough if not for termination for cause (to use the American) at least to make the outcome a foregone conclusion.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

sid waddell

Quote from: Taylor on April 16, 2018, 09:20:29 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:17:27 AM
Quote from: Taylor on April 16, 2018, 09:14:28 AM
So the fem nazis have succeeded in making sure the two boys dont play in Ireland again. The should be happy with their work

Who is the next target for them?

No. It was their own actions that got them the door. They've accepted that. I suggest you and the other saddos who can't accept this do likewise.

There was no other decision that could have been made.

No need to resort to personal abuse MS.  :-\

How has Gilroy got off with a sanction if the Whats App messages were the crux of the problem?

I'm not sure if you get the irony of complaining about the term "saddos" while using the term "Nazis".

Taylor

Quote from: sid waddell on April 16, 2018, 10:24:07 AM
Quote from: Taylor on April 16, 2018, 09:20:29 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:17:27 AM
Quote from: Taylor on April 16, 2018, 09:14:28 AM
So the fem nazis have succeeded in making sure the two boys dont play in Ireland again. The should be happy with their work

Who is the next target for them?

No. It was their own actions that got them the door. They've accepted that. I suggest you and the other saddos who can't accept this do likewise.

There was no other decision that could have been made.

No need to resort to personal abuse MS.  :-\

How has Gilroy got off with a sanction if the Whats App messages were the crux of the problem?

I'm not sure if you get the irony of complaining about the term "saddos" while using the term "Nazis".

Did I make it personal to MS? Thought not. Move along Syf

seafoid

If Sid is also Syf then Larnaparka must be Indiana.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

sid waddell

Quote from: Taylor on April 16, 2018, 10:33:56 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 16, 2018, 10:24:07 AM
Quote from: Taylor on April 16, 2018, 09:20:29 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:17:27 AM
Quote from: Taylor on April 16, 2018, 09:14:28 AM
So the fem nazis have succeeded in making sure the two boys dont play in Ireland again. The should be happy with their work

Who is the next target for them?

No. It was their own actions that got them the door. They've accepted that. I suggest you and the other saddos who can't accept this do likewise.

There was no other decision that could have been made.

No need to resort to personal abuse MS.  :-\

How has Gilroy got off with a sanction if the Whats App messages were the crux of the problem?

I'm not sure if you get the irony of complaining about the term "saddos" while using the term "Nazis".

Did I make it personal to MS? Thought not. Move along Syf
So you didn't get the irony, and still don't?


Taylor

Quote from: sid waddell on April 16, 2018, 11:07:26 AM
Quote from: Taylor on April 16, 2018, 10:33:56 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 16, 2018, 10:24:07 AM
Quote from: Taylor on April 16, 2018, 09:20:29 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:17:27 AM
Quote from: Taylor on April 16, 2018, 09:14:28 AM
So the fem nazis have succeeded in making sure the two boys dont play in Ireland again. The should be happy with their work

Who is the next target for them?

No. It was their own actions that got them the door. They've accepted that. I suggest you and the other saddos who can't accept this do likewise.

There was no other decision that could have been made.

No need to resort to personal abuse MS.  :-\

How has Gilroy got off with a sanction if the Whats App messages were the crux of the problem?

I'm not sure if you get the irony of complaining about the term "saddos" while using the term "Nazis".

Did I make it personal to MS? Thought not. Move along Syf
So you didn't get the irony, and still don't?

::)  ::)

Anyway, reports say a number of big clubs are looking them and an announcement this week. Unless it is in France assume it is bs?

DuffleKing

Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:59:34 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on April 16, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:43:02 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 16, 2018, 09:35:55 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 16, 2018, 09:23:16 AM
As has already been mentioned he wasn't charged with rape. He didn't leave a girl bleeding and distressed. And I believe he has been sanctioned in some way, just not sacked.

I shouldn't have said saddos - I apologise.

These men have been presumed innocent of accusations of sexual assault and rape from the moment and unanimously found not guilty by a jury of their peers of the same charges. They are and cannot be disciplined for any of those charges legally. If you don't understand that you disqualify yourself from being take seriously in these debates.

These two men have been sacked because their employers have an ethical issue with how they conduct their private lives - pure and simple. That is a very dangerous precedent as they now have to follow it up. It's a very good job that the IRFU don't apply these standards retrospectively or, for example, one of the world's best half backs would be out on his ear also.

Where else is this moral code to be applied? How about employees who take performance enhancing drugs? What about players who take recreational drugs or use legal narcotics in doses that induce well being effects? What about Ulster players who are members of the Orange Order? Drink driving offences? Slapping their children?

Pandora's box is opened and you can be sure that every personal indiscretion of IRFU employees going forward will be throw on the altar for moral judgement.

You do understand there's a difference between when someone maintains they gave consent and another person maintains they did not give consent - do you?

As we're aware of, the bar for a criminal conviction is very high as it should be. Not being convicted doesn't mean their behaviour was fine. They knew this girl was upset at the very least. They brought this on themselves with their actions. Any sympathy for them is grossly misplaced.

Legally, charges that they have been found not guilty of cannot be used as part of their dismissal - surely you grasp that? The trial cannot be used as part of the IRFU's reasoning.

This is very clear - irrespective of how much smoke and dust that is kicked up around it - these two players have been sacked because of how they conduct themselves in their personal lives irrespective of those actions being perfectly legal.
That is simply not true.  I don't know why this line continues to be pedalled out.

Exactly. Completely untrue. I wouldn't mind but it's not even that far back on this thread where it has been stated that in other professions people are let go if they get arrested.


Just because you repeat something that doesn't make it true

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0414/954460-stuart-olding-paddy-jackson/

In a statement, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby said: "In arriving at this decision, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby said they acknowledged their responsibility and commitment to the core values of the game - respect, inclusivity and integrity."

There is no mention of the court case. The IRFU could have interviewed witnesses, examined testimony, etc. but they didn't - they made a decision on these contracts based on a commitment to the core values of the game as they see them - which they are perfectly entitled to do.

The problem they have now is that every employee has to be held stringently to the the same core values.


seafoid


https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2018/0416/954927-clermont-rule-out-move-for-paddy-jackson/

Meanwhile, French champions Clermont Auvergne have ruled out recruiting Jackson, saying speculation they wanted to sign the former Ulster and Ireland out-half was "false information".

The reigning Top 14 champions are one of a number of clubs linked with Jackson since the cancellation of his Ulster and IRFU contract over the weekend.

"The Irish out-half will not come," head coach Franck Azéma told the club's website.

"There is no contact between Paddy Jackson and the club and no desire on our part to engage his services.

"I trust our workforce in this position where we do not lack resources with Camille Lopez, Patricio Fernandez, Ice Toeava and Dorian Lavernhe...

"With the constraints imposed by the salary cap, it is not possible to strengthen the position of out-half, where the internal solutions are numerous. "

On Sunday, English side Exeter denied reports linking them with a move for Olding.

"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU